2. Contact Info

3. Dealer Selection

The Montero was one of our test’s most pleasant surprises. In the past two years, Mitsubishi has come up with new motors-for both its entry-level LS and top-of-the-line SR models-that successfully fill out the Montero’s potential. Although the LS, basing at $28,475, would have qualified for our comparison with a few options, we chose the SR, which trades a higher $34,625 base price for a more potent engine and additional features. This also made the Mitsubishi the highest-priced vehicle of the group.

The SR’s new 3.5-liter/214-horsepower, 228-pound-foot 24-valve DOHC V-6 is second only in output to the Jeep Grand Cherokee‘s V-8. It also posted the second-quickest 0-60-mph time-a full second better than the next-closest competitors, the Explorer and the V-8-equipped Discovery-and had no problem propelling the hefty 4440-pound Montero up steep, twisty mountain roads that had most of the others gasping for breath. Its Active Trac four-wheel-drive system allows it to run in two- or all-wheel drive and includes a locking differential for especially nasty conditions. Plus, its Multi-Mode ABS operates in both in two- and four-wheel drive, something most other systems don’t do.

Our test vehicle also included Mitsubishi’s optional three-mode adjustable shocks, with soft, medium, and hard settings. Even the soft mode was a little firm for some tastes, although overall ride quality was judged as good. As the second-tallest vehicle of the group, its high center of gravity translates into noticeable body lean in corners, despite the help of front and rear anti-roll bars. Switching to the hard shock setting improves the situation somewhat.

As would be expected by its sticker price, the Montero came to us as the best-outfitted vehicle of the group, sporting all of the usual amenities, plus extra touches such as headlamp washers, real wood trim, a rear-door toolbox, a rear accessory light, and a stereo with CD changer, cassette, and seven-band graphic equalizer. The Montero also boasts the most cubic feet of cargo capacity.

Two optional third-row seats increase passenger capacity to seven. Leg- and headroom are tight in these seats, but they work well for kids and are more comfortable than the side-facing jump seats in the Discovery. When not in use, they simply fold up sideways, taking up no floor space.

The Montero is now a well-rounded, complete package that exhibits ample insight into the needs of the SUV buyer, and in our test was well received as one of the most inviting vehicles in which to spend time. If you think the SR’s price is a little steep, the LS offers much of this goodness for a few thousand less.

{{{Nissan Pathfinder}}} LE-V6As the new-generation Pathfinder is readied for production probably within the next year, the current version continues as one of the best-selling SUVs in the import class. However, a change is definitely due. Its angular styling, in step with the trends when it debuted in ’91, is now beginning to appear dated, both inside and out.

Even in terms of dimensions, the Pathfinder seems defined by early ’90s standards. Of the group, its body is the shortest in length, the second lowest in height, and the narrowest in width. At a time when SUVs are boasting increased roominess, these dimensions translate into a noticeably more compact interior. While it sports the most front legroom of our seven, it comes up short on rear legroom and shoulder room. The rear seat sits slightly higher than the front ones, increasing passenger visibility but trimming rear headroom. On the plus side, the LE’s side running boards provide the lowest step-up height of the group.

This compact trend carries over into the cargo compartment, where its rear area is further compromised by the inclusion of a full-size spare tire. This reduces seat-up cargo capacity to a group-low of 31.4 cubic feet and 7.3 square feet of useable floor area. With the seat down, it recovers somewhat to edge out the Toyota and Land Rover in total cubic feet.

The Pathfinder is powered by a 3.0-liter SOHC V-6, which, with 153 horsepower and 180 pound-feet of torque, drew criticism for a lack of passing and hill-climbing power, as well as excessive noise at high revs. To its credit, the Nissan ran 0-60 mph quicker than both the Toyota and the Isuzu, and only a tenth of a second behind the V-8-powered Land Rover. This is also the only vehicle in our group that doesn’t offer four-wheel ABS; a rear-wheel system is standard.

The Pathfinder features a firm suspension that lacks the plush, road-absorbing feel exhibited by some of the others, but it pays off on heavier bumps. On curvy roads the Nissan’s suspension and low center of gravity shine. It feels low to the road and is stable and confidence-inspiring in corners, with impressively carlike handling and steering. For some of our drivers, flogging the Nissan down a twisty mountain road (not up, mind you) was one of the highlights of our testing.

Overall, the Pathfinder continues to be a fully competent SUV that will work well for many families, but in this rarified field, the competition has left it struggling to catch up.

{{{Toyota 4Runner}}} SR5 V6 LimitedUnlike the Pathfinder’s, the 4Runner’s styling has aged gracefully. Although this iteration was released in mid-’89, its soft lines and rounded corners still look good, drawing compliments from our staff. Perhaps this has something to do with why the 4Runner was the best-selling import SUV in 1994 and is again leading the sales pack this year.

The 4Runner offers a mixed bag of pros and cons. On the plus side is an inviting interior with comfy, form-fitting sport seats, a nicely laid-out dash, plenty of useable rear floor area, and good noise isolation. It also offers tight, linear steering feel, a plush, softly tuned suspension that gobbles up small bumps, and a healthy 10.2 inches of ground clearance, the most of the group.

The flip side of this high stance is the tallest step-up height: 25 inches into the front seat, 3 inches more than the next closest. Its high center of gravity also makes itself known on curvy roads, where the body exhibits noticeable lean. It also posted the lowest skidpad grip of the group (0.69 g).

With the rear seat down, the Toyota provides a 67-inch-deep cargo area, second only to that of the Explorer. However, the other side of this spec is the tightest rear legroom of the seven vehicles.

Under the hood is Toyota’s 3.0-liter SOHC V-6, delivering 150 horsepower-the least of the group. The lack of power is evident both in passing situations and when climbing hills, and was good for only a 13.0-second 0-60-mph run, almost 2 seconds behind than the next slowest, the Trooper at 11.1 seconds.

Despite its shortcomings, the 4Runner drew some loud praise from several members of the staff. In addition, a new generation is around the corner-possibly as soon as this fall. With help from the expected 3.4-liter V-6 now used in the new Tacoma pickup, most if not all of these debits should be corrected. Until then, if you can live with the shortcomings, you should be able to get a good price on the current version in the months ahead.

Inner SpaceForget four-wheel drive and the call of the wild-many SUV buyers are more interested in the practical, everyday value of all that versatile cargo space. As with many other features, there can be a big difference in the rear accommodations from one vehicle to the next.

Among the elements to consider: How much total cargo capacity does it offer? How does that affect rear passenger comfort? Do the seats feature a split-folding design? Is there optional auxiliary seating for extra passengers, and does it affect cargo handling? Are there any extras for rear passenger comfort, like audio/heater controls or cupholders? Part of the picture can be seen here. The rest is in the accompanying sidebar, “The Difference in the Details.”

The Difference In The DetailsWhen using a sport/utility vehicle as an everyday driver, the details can make a big difference. For instance, how easy is stepping into the vehicle? The difference between 20 inches and 25 inches can be significant. How quickly and easily do the rear seats fold down? If you plan on fully utilizing the cargo-hauling potential of an SUV, this is an important factor. What type of rear door does it have? Where’s the spare tire mounted, how easy is it to remove, and does it eat up cargo space? Remember, since rear ceiling height is factored in when calculating the vehicle’s cargo capacity, the total volume figure isn’t always a good indication of the actual useable floor space.

To get the facts, we pulled out our trusty tape measure, stopwatch, and notebook, and set to work. We measured the step-up height of both the front and rear doors. We folded down every rear seat and timed how long it took. We noted the type of rear door and where the spare tire is mounted. Finally, we measured the actual useable floor space in the rear of each vehicle (width was measured between the wheelwells), both with the rear seat up and with it down. All of this should help give you a more complete picture of how livable these SUVs will be over the long haul.

Ford

Isuzu

Jeep Grand

Mitsubishi

Nissan

Toyota

Explorer

Trooper

Cherokee

Land Rover

Montero

Pathfinder

4Runner SR5

Eddie Bauer

LS

Orvis Ed.

Discovery

SR

LE-V6

V6 Limited

Step up height

f/r, in.

22.0/21.5

20.0/21.0

19.0/20.5

20.5/21.0

21.0/21.5

13.5/14.5*

25.0/24.5

Rear seat fold-down

Time, sec

13.6

18.5

23.1

15.8

7.1

22.9

21.9

Ease-of-use rating

A-

B+

B

A

B

B

C+

Cargo capacity, cu ft

Rear seat up

42.6

46.3

40.1

45.8

44.8

31.4

43.5

Rear seat down

81.6

90.2

81.0

69.8

96.6

80.2

78.3

Useable rear floor area

Seat up: l x w, in.

42.0 x 41.5

42.0 x 40.0

37.5 x 32.5

31.0 x 42.0**

42.0 x 36.5

34.0 x 31.0

46.0 x 37.0

sq ft

12.1

11.7

8.5

9.0

10.6

7.3

11.8

Seat down: l, in.

76.0

57.0

60.5

51.5

58.0

59.5

67.0

Rear door design

1-piece lift,

70/30 split doors,

1-piece lift

1-piece,

1-piece,

1-piece lift,

Tailgate w/pwr

gls opens sep

opens to side

opens to side

opens to side

gls opens sep

win., opens down

Spare tire location

Under vehicle

On rear door

In rear comp

On rear door

On rear door

In rear comp

Under vehicle

*w/running board

**w/rear jump seats

The VerdictThe final notes had been written, the last measurement taken, and all photos shot. The vehicles were covered with dust, mud, and road grime. The tires were scuffed. Hundreds of gallons of gas had been burned. Cassettes, CDs, and empty soda cans were scattered helter-skelter throughout the vehicles. The drivers grimaced at the thought of another roadside meal. And even radio coverage of the O.J. trial was losing its novelty.

It was the moment of truth: time to separate the front-runners from the rest of the pack. It wasn’t easy with a field this strong. Each vehicle has its individual charms, its own personality, its unique strengths, and, yes, noticeable weaknesses. These are all reflected in the individual report cards. At times, the differences that separated one from another in the final voting seemed relatively minor, but nonetheless relevant. And, just like in real life, different editors championed the vehicles that best fit their own expectations and priorities. Yet, as we considered various buyer profiles, the same names kept coming up.

For instance, when asked to list the top three vehicles recommended for someone who plans to use an SUV as a daily around-town family vehicle, our seven testers settled unanimously on the Ford Explorer and the Jeep Grand Cherokee, with the Isuzu Trooper edging out the Mitsubishi Montero. When deciding which three to recommend for someone who regularly drives in the mountains, they again pointed to the Grand Cherokee, just ahead of the Montero and with the Explorer a distant third. Asked to choose three for frequent off-pavement use (in dirt, snow, and so on), the Mitsubishi and the Land Rover were unanimous choices, with the Jeep edging out the Isuzu.

Finally came the big question: Which sport/utility is the best overall? First, we considered them with price as no object. All testers listed their choices from best to worst and a simple point system was used to combine scores. Rising to the top by one point was the Mitsubishi Montero SR, on the basis of its strong engine, voluminous interior, sophisticated drivetrain, and array of luxury features. A slim point back was the Jeep Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition, drawing nods for its potent V-8, outstanding performance specs, plush ride, and high fun-to-drive quotient. A close third was the Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer, with its comfortable, friendly cabin, spacious interior, user-friendly Control Trac system, and many extras.

For our next vote we considered the entries in terms of overall value, just as most buyers would. Here, the Montero’s high sticker price dropped its rating to fifth, leaving the Grand Cherokee and Explorer neck-and-neck at the top, with the Trooper climbing into third. Although the Jeep beat the Ford on points, the two appeal to distinctly different buyers. For the person who wants quick acceleration, hill-climbing power, carlike handling, maximum towing capacity, and the edge in braking, the Jeep Grand Cherokee V-8 is the logical choice. For buyers who place a higher priority on interior comfort, dual airbags, maximum cargo space, and more amenities for their dollar, the Ford Explorer has what they’re looking for. All of which only reemphasizes why these are the two best-selling sport/utes on the road.

Seating

Horsepower

1996 Mitsubishi Montero News and Reviews

The Montero was one of our test's most pleasant surprises. In the past two years, Mitsubishi has come up with new motors-for both its entry-level LS and top-of-the-line SR models-that successfully fill out the Montero's potential. Although the LS, basing at $28,475, would have qualified for our comparison with a few options, we chose the SR, which trades a higher…